Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Scanning backs for large format  (Read 10935 times)
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1590


« Reply #40 on: May 01, 2012, 09:52:03 AM »
ReplyReply

After considering all sorts of options I finally ended up with a Linhof Techno and an Aptus 75 back, all second hand. The tipping point was that second hand digital medium format was cheaper than I expected and the other options more expensive or cumbersome than I expected.
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 01, 2012, 10:46:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I once owned a Dicomed field Pro, a predecessor to the Betterlight and also made under Mike Collette's supervision.  The quality, with the right subject, was fantastic, but something of a hassle to lug around in the field.  Insane really, because only static subjects are suitable. However they are the only choice if you presently want to mirror the effect of LF film, as we have no single shot sensor for large format I am aware of.  Fun to play with but impractical in daily use for most of us.
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2012, 02:36:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The scanbacks still have their life in some reproduction areas, but for 3D stuff they are a total PITA.
I have used a Dicomed and a Photo Phase back for several years and we even did motorcycles and other stuff with this.........BUT:
to lighten that we had to grill the whole studio with thousands and thousands of watts of Halogen or HMI and this was either Hot or expensive or both.

So I would even consider getting an FX for Repro usage and to have a reason to use my old viewcamera (kind of sentimental journey....)
But really: compared to an actual 80 Mpix back with a good lens there is not much reason left to regret the departure of the scantechnology.

The fact is also that Kodak has stopped the making of the largest scanlines and thus all the scanner makers have to stitch the lines for larger backs now.
Only exception are the Kruse Scanners - because they bought the complete stock of large Kodak scanlines even with exclusive rights on them.

regards
Stefan
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 05:09:36 PM by Stefan.Steib » Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
henrikfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708


« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2012, 01:42:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The lightening is not a big problem anymore. You can buy many flicker-free lights that are
both cheap and don't produce much heat.

Henrik
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2012, 03:04:16 AM »
ReplyReply

There was a thread recently about tilt/shift lenses, fixing the lense to the stand and allowing the camera to move for stitching.

Are not the trade-offs involved in such a setup very similar to those of a scanning back? Moving a (small) rectangular sensor within a large image circle, vs moving a (thin) line sensor across a large image circle.

If good line sensors are hard to source, would it not make sense for those manufacturers to purchase a 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony, and make the mechanics to "scan" it across a MF, LF image circle?

-h
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 837



« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2012, 04:25:39 AM »
ReplyReply

If good line sensors are hard to source, would it not make sense for those manufacturers to purchase a 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony, and make the mechanics to "scan" it across a MF, LF image circle?

-h

Why APS-C? Wouldn't full-frame 35mm make a lot more sense? It's 2.5x larger in area, plus coupled with fewer overlaps required to mop up the whole image circle area, you're probably talking 4x fewer exposures.

You are right to put "scan" in quotation marks, because this would not operate anything like a scanning camera. It would be an automated 2d area-stitching camera, to coin a phrase, and everything would be different about the hardware & firmware; it might be beyond the R&D resources of the scan-back manufacturers to successfully implement something so different. It is an appealing idea though.

Ray
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2012, 04:57:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Why APS-C? Wouldn't full-frame 35mm make a lot more sense? It's 2.5x larger in area, plus coupled with fewer overlaps required to mop up the whole image circle area, you're probably talking 4x fewer exposures.
Lower price, higher pixel density, state-of-the-art technology. You might be able to find FF sensors that are state-of-the-art and very high pixel density, but I think that you pay a lot to have those things AND large area at the same time. I am guessing that it would be more economical to just increase the total exposure time.
Quote
You are right to put "scan" in quotation marks, because this would not operate anything like a scanning camera. It would be an automated 2d area-stitching camera, to coin a phrase, and everything would be different about the hardware & firmware; it might be beyond the R&D resources of the scan-back manufacturers to successfully implement something so different. It is an appealing idea though.
Sure. But except the (difficult) mechanical problem, everything else should be simple: use a good MF/LF system as a basis, (re--)use off-the-shelf APS-C sensors with associated processing, do proper stitching offline in a PC/mac application.

Movement artifacts might not look the same (or as good as) line-type sensors, though. Either you would need complete still scenes, or good merging algorithms.

-h
Logged
TH_Alpa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2012, 05:57:58 AM »
ReplyReply

This system existed already more than 10 years ago, with the Sinar Macroscan: the adapter was mototized and moved the sensor automatically by either 1 pixel 4 times (Macroscan) or by 1/2 a pixel (Micorscan) to increase the resolution by a factor of 4, including the software part to assemble/stich the multiples tiles together.

BR
Thierry

You are right to put "scan" in quotation marks, because this would not operate anything like a scanning camera. It would be an automated 2d area-stitching camera, to coin a phrase, and everything would be different about the hardware & firmware; it might be beyond the R&D resources of the scan-back manufacturers to successfully implement something so different. It is an appealing idea though.

Ray
Sure. But except the (difficult) mechanical problem, everything else should be simple: use a good MF/LF system as a basis, ...
Logged

ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 837



« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2012, 06:11:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Thierry,

But could it move the sensor all around the image circle?

Ray
Logged
TH_Alpa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2012, 07:07:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes Ray, it did make use of most of the image circle of the lens available, of course depending on the lens and the corresponding IC of this lens.
It was possible to set the device to make more or less tiles, dipending on this IC.

BR
Thierry
Hi Thierry,

But could it move the sensor all around the image circle?

Ray
Logged

Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 03, 2012, 02:41:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Thierry

this was not even the first one - does anyone remember the Kontron ProgRes 3012  scancamera ?
4608x3480 Pixel resolution, I think the first ones were sold around 1993 or maybe 1994. There was one sold recently on Ebay

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Kontron-Elektronik-ProgRes-3012-Mikroskopkamera-Top-/370390723224

These were about the first, professionally usable Digital cameras, even before Leaf, Dicomed, Megavision..........

Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
TH_Alpa
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



« Reply #51 on: May 03, 2012, 04:34:48 AM »
ReplyReply

hi Stefan,

Yes, right, I remember it. Was that not a scanner actually? Can't remember.

BR
Thierry
Logged

Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 03, 2012, 08:49:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Didn't Rollei have some scan backs back then? I seem to recall a couple of models, one of them maybe Dicomed?
Logged

Geoff
Peter Devos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 474


« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2012, 09:14:16 AM »
ReplyReply

That was a Phase One as i remember.... after that they ad a 4Mp back and a 6Mp back from Imacon. I had both, still have the 4 Mp and it still is fuan to shoot with them.
Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2012, 11:58:58 AM »
ReplyReply

About the only one besides the FX which I would like to use again today is the Leica S1

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Leica-S1.jsp

One of our customers was doing a lot of catalogue and stills with it. Using Leica R lenses. Probably the best camera back then (from my todays point of view).

Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad